Replies

I read that part; it sounds as thought you are against an Article V Convention for proposing Constitutional Amendments. And that you're going to describe a scenario that is a straw man that you claim is analogous, so you can easily knock it down. Is this incorrect?

But there are a couple of things you and Mister Anti-Federalist Fanboy Purist, and frankly, most anti-Article V reactionaries so conveniently ignore as you go on and on about what you imagine will happen:

1. It's NOT a Constitutional Convention. It's a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. After the convention, each state legislature still has to ratify each proposed amendment until either 38 states have or the deadline for ratification of the amendment is passed. Just as is with any amendment proposed by Congress.
You write some convoluted text to apparently make the point, as others have, that people today aren't of the same intellectual and/or moral caliber of the drafters of the Constitution. But we're not asking them to draft a Constitution, only proposed amendments, something Congress has done numerous times. What is it that you are in fact saying; that only Congress can be trusted to draft proposed amendments? Because that is logical outcome of your position, and the Founders clearly disgreed with you!

2. Most of us aren't relying on the nonexistent honor of politicians and officials to honor the new amendments on "how things should be" (that seems to be what you're doing, in your prayers or inaction), we're proposing amendments or the repeal of existing amendments (the 16th, the 17th) in order to restore the original system of checks and balances, returning power to the states so we dont have to rely on them doing the right thing. The same goes for those proposing term limits.

3. Being concerned about a possible runaway convention is admirable, but what about equivalent threats to the Constitution occurring right now? WE ALREADY HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A RUNAWAY CONVENTION, REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION, EVERY SUPREME COURT SESSION! And lately, it seems district courts have gotten in on the action; look at what happened yesterday!

Speaking of not reading things, maybe you need to read this, instead of raising the same old, previously addressed, arguments in every thread:
https://www.conventionofstates.com/faq

The salesman's rule of thumb is never offer a choice of more than two.

Three or more confuses people and you will make no sale.

The unified idealism of our founders no longer exists ... at least not in practice ... and a COS may indeed be only a means of proffering amendments, but I DO foresee a hodgepodge of mentalities, not necessarily aligned with each other, coming away with amendments (plural) and not only the repeal of 16 and 17.

I'm on a school board and there is in SOME districts what we call an "agenda meeting" which is a separate meeting to determine what goes on the agenda and the existing items are discussed before the public School Board meeting ... usually a week in advance.

MY school district vehemently opposes the adoption of an agenda meeting because (IMO) they (the commies ON the board and the ones in the administration) LOVE the idea and fact that they can spring stuff on us and we're forced to vote up or down with very little thinking and NO public input ... the vote has to happen tonight.

I know enough about people in power positions that ... you're right ... I don't trust them.

We live in an electronic age where both the library and the post office are obsolete ....

FreeRepublic is the most mental gymnastics I engage in ... everything else is an argument or I just walk away from a stubborn opinion.